Joking aside, it's sad to see NASA lose another spacecraft, not only because of the mission data lost, but because of the bad PR this incident may attract. They are building vehicles much more cheaply now (this one was a scant $200M or so) but we can't help compare it to the glory days of the Apollo missions.
God forbid we find a recovery technique that works. . .and keep using it. Nooooooo! Let's think of new and inventive ways to trash bazillion-dollar spacecraft.
I know! I know! Giant airbags--that's the ticket.
Oooh! Oooh! Let's put a parachute on it. . .but then catch it with helicopters in mid-air!
Jeebus. These idiots have lost all sight of the mission, and are just ivory-tower academic juveniles sparring with each other over who can get the coolest project funded.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
God forbid we find a recovery technique that works. . .and keep using it. Nooooooo! Let's think of new and inventive ways to trash bazillion-dollar spacecraft.I know! I know! Giant airbags--that's the ticket.
Oooh! Oooh! Let's put a parachute on it. . .but then catch it with helicopters in mid-air!
Everyone knows the suitcase full of cottonballs is the way to go.
It like something from an old Atari or Nintendo game. 
quote:
I want some of what Bloodsage was smoking when they wrote this:
NASA needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up, with the caveat that no one currently working there can be re-hired.God forbid we find a recovery technique that works. . .and keep using it. Nooooooo! Let's think of new and inventive ways to trash bazillion-dollar spacecraft.
I know! I know! Giant airbags--that's the ticket.
Oooh! Oooh! Let's put a parachute on it. . .but then catch it with helicopters in mid-air!
Jeebus. These idiots have lost all sight of the mission, and are just ivory-tower academic juveniles sparring with each other over who can get the coolest project funded.
Nasa's gone low cost. There aren't any more "bazillion dollar" spacecraft anymore. As Iulius said above, this one was about 200m, mostly because of the device used to catch the solar wind.
The airbags were used on mars since we didn't know the terrain, and it was all automated decent (Yes, you try controlling it on a roughly 8 minute delay).
The REASON why they had to catch it in midair was to get it away from atmospheric contamination as soon as possible. Things went wrong. If the Apollo spacecraft were plucked out of the air by helicopters instead of landing in the ocean, you would have wet yourself at the ingenousness.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Delphi Aegis was all like:
Nasa's gone low cost. There aren't any more "bazillion dollar" spacecraft anymore. As Iulius said above, this one was about 200m, mostly because of the device used to catch the solar wind.The airbags were used on mars since we didn't know the terrain, and it was all automated decent (Yes, you try controlling it on a roughly 8 minute delay).
The REASON why they had to catch it in midair was to get it away from atmospheric contamination as soon as possible. Things went wrong. If the Apollo spacecraft were plucked out of the air by helicopters instead of landing in the ocean, you would have wet yourself at the ingenousness.
Dammit, Jim!
Once more Delphi bests me with his superior technical understanding and insight into timely issues. When, oh, when will I ever learn not to cross him?!
One of us, as usual, is completely out to lunch. Here's a clue: odds are good I was a member of the Planetary Society before you started kindergarten.
{edit: style, tag} Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 09-08-2004 at 03:45 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's little brother wrote this stupid shit:
Dammit, Jim!Once more Delphi bests me with his superior technical understanding and insight into timely issues. When, oh, when will I ever learn not to cross him?!
One of us, as usual, is completely out to lunch. Here's a clue: odds are good I was a member of the Planetary Society before you started kindergarten.
{edit: style, tag}
He's dead, fucker!
Oh no, once again, bloodsage avoids the points made by someone and then goes on into something about his life, that, by sheer association, makes him right.. even though he hasn't disproved anything about the previous post!
If you'd like to argue the points instead of "lolo i r oldar then u, i win", please continue.
quote:
Delphi Aegis probably says this to all the girls:
Oh no, once again, bloodsage avoids the points made by someone and then goes on into something about his life, that, by sheer association, makes him right.. even though he hasn't disproved anything about the previous post!If you'd like to argue the points instead of "lolo i r oldar then u, i win", please continue.
Since he's always right he's just trying to save us all a little time.
quote:
Delphi Aegis attempted to be funny by writing:
He's dead, fucker!Oh no, once again, bloodsage avoids the points made by someone and then goes on into something about his life, that, by sheer association, makes him right.. even though he hasn't disproved anything about the previous post!
If you'd like to argue the points instead of "lolo i r oldar then u, i win", please continue.
Sure. When you actually address the meat of what I'm talking about.
As usual, you not only miss the point, but miss it so utterly your (apparently) honest answer turns out insultingly condescending.
The issues, since you don't seem to grasp concepts easily:
1. NASA's obvious focus on "cool" vs "proven" and "hey, Mom, look at this" instead of "get the mission done"
Do you honestly believe the airbag thing was necessary? Bullshit. It's not like we haven't landed anything on Mars before, is it?
Finally, yes, losing a $200M spacecraft due to use of completely unproven recovery techniques is crap. Total crap. Unnecessary total crap.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
Finally, yes, losing a $200M spacecraft due to use of completely unproven recovery techniques is crap. Total crap. Unnecessary total crap.
Yeah, did they even test out this theory more than like once or twice to see if its even plausible?
quote:
Katrinity stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Yeah, did they even test out this theory more than like once or twice to see if its even plausible?
Of course they tested it!
They took two plastic toy helicopters, glued them to metal tables, stuck a net between them, and threw a baseball in. Since the net caught the baseball, the premise was sound, so they went ahead with it!
quote:
Bloodsage got bored and wrote this:
Sure. When you actually address the meat of what I'm talking about.As usual, you not only miss the point, but miss it so utterly your (apparently) honest answer turns out insultingly condescending.
The issues, since you don't seem to grasp concepts easily:
1. NASA's obvious focus on "cool" vs "proven" and "hey, Mom, look at this" instead of "get the mission done"
Do you honestly believe the airbag thing was necessary? Bullshit. It's not like we haven't landed anything on Mars before, is it?
Finally, yes, losing a $200M spacecraft due to use of completely unproven recovery techniques is crap. Total crap. Unnecessary total crap.
We have landed on mars before. With much more expensive spacecraft. They tested the airbags extensivly in-house with mars-like rocks (Think a giant 60-70 degree sloped surface with the airbag system dropped on it repeatedly). What makes you think they didn't test this? Your gut feeling? The fact that you're older? ooh.
Come on, 'sage. You're angry at nasa for not making a cheaper launch vehicle to get you (and the general public) into orbit. Admit it. ;D
quote:
Verily, Delphi Aegis doth proclaim:
We have landed on mars before. With much more expensive spacecraft. They tested the airbags extensivly in-house with mars-like rocks (Think a giant 60-70 degree sloped surface with the airbag system dropped on it repeatedly). What makes you think they didn't test this? Your gut feeling? The fact that you're older? ooh.Come on, 'sage. You're angry at nasa for not making a cheaper launch vehicle to get you (and the general public) into orbit. Admit it. ;D
Bloodsage may have started with an insult, but now you're embracing it full-on while he's managed to stay on topic.
As usual, Delphi loses.
quote:
How.... Khyron.... uughhhhhh:
Of course they tested it!They took two plastic toy helicopters, glued them to metal tables, stuck a net between them, and threw a baseball in. Since the net caught the baseball, the premise was sound, so they went ahead with it!
"We r the gr8tst minds in N454 LOLZ!"
quote:
Bloodsage was naked while typing this:
Sure. When you actually address the meat of what I'm talking about.As usual, you not only miss the point, but miss it so utterly your (apparently) honest answer turns out insultingly condescending.
The issues, since you don't seem to grasp concepts easily:
1. NASA's obvious focus on "cool" vs "proven" and "hey, Mom, look at this" instead of "get the mission done"
Do you honestly believe the airbag thing was necessary? Bullshit. It's not like we haven't landed anything on Mars before, is it?
Finally, yes, losing a $200M spacecraft due to use of completely unproven recovery techniques is crap. Total crap. Unnecessary total crap.
NASA had a budget of $13.6 billion in 2000. I don't have a more recent number, but it's safe to say it's still in that ballpark. That means that this mission counts for only 1.4% of a yearly budget. The Viking missions, which I assume are what you're referring in terms of landing missions had over 1,000 people actively participating in the landing. While it's easy to say that $200m is an incredible amount of money to throw away, NASA's mission is to explore space and advance humanity's understanding of the universe. There's no way to do that without testing new technology (unless you want to have 1,000 people attending to every space landing ever), and there's no substitute for the real world in testing. Testing is a cost/benefit enterprise, and you can't devote the same amount of testing you do for manned craft as you do for experimental unmanned craft, built on relatively meager budgets.
Even with NASA's recent screwups, I challenge you to find a group that's doing nearly as well at those goals.
Sources:
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_costs_991206.html
http://www.arc.nasa.gov/aboutames-missionstatement.cfm
EDIT: Kaglaaz How'ler fucked around with this message on 09-08-2004 at 05:33 PM.
But come to think of it. This was NOT done by NASA... It was our Intelligence program.
So while I will admit Nasa has problems, they aren't doing as bad as needing to fire everyone and start from scratch, they have a lot of talent working there and have demonstrated results over the years.
Like any gov't funded agency there are some crackpots that need to be canned though. Reynar fucked around with this message on 09-08-2004 at 05:54 PM.
Looks like some might have survived, from that photo. It looks suprisingly intact.
It sucks that we blew *OVER* 200m on this project (was quoted by several sources as being ~260m) and it looks like we've had yet another major mistake, but I can hardly call it a *failure*. They found another way that simply didn't work. You can test shit in a lab till your grandchildren are dead and burried and it's still NOT going to be a 100% success in the field. NOTHING performs 100% of the time, not nature, not physics, NOTHING. We, as human beings, do not have sufficient control of the atomic structure of the universe to make anything a 100% certainty.
quote:
Reynar spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Nasa is one of the very few gov't funded agencies that actually produces tangible results in it's technologies.
Wasnt it NASA that spent millions and millions of dollars researching a ballpoint pen that could write in the depths of outer space, underwater, upside, ad nauseum...
... While the Russians used a cheap leaded pencil to get the same result??
Can you say "legitimate use of government funds"?
quote:
Mortious stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Were the samples completely destroyed?Looks like some might have survived, from that photo. It looks suprisingly intact.
I would say it is rather improbable (read, generally impossible) that any of it remains uncontaminated, making that another bazillion wasted. Any luck in the samples not being contaminated would have been much better spent in winning the lottery, 52 weeks in a row.
quote:
Katrinity's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
The whole helicopter catching the device on a parachute concept was cooked up by some video game fanatic at NASA, I swear...It like something from an old Atari or Nintendo game.
That old Atari game Space Shuttle or whatever it was called owned hardcore.
quote:
JooJooFlop had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Since he's always right he's just trying to save us all a little time.
I giggled at that more than I probably should have. 
quote:
Abbikat said this about your mom:
Wasnt it NASA that spent millions and millions of dollars researching a ballpoint pen that could write in the depths of outer space, underwater, upside, ad nauseum...... While the Russians used a cheap leaded pencil to get the same result??
Can you say "legitimate use of government funds"?
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Pvednes was all like:
I would say it is rather improbable (read, generally impossible) that any of it remains uncontaminated, making that another bazillion wasted.
Unless the spaceprobe was completely, totally, and utterly airproof and a vacuum inside, there was going to be atmospheric contaimination anyway... even me with my limited science knowledge can figure that one out 
That's sort of what NASA's become of late; a funding house for a lot of crackpots who don't produce anything. Don't get me wrong, I think that there should be some sort of funding for the truly bizarre projects. There should always be someone wanting to push the envelope. But the fact is that if NASA crashes a 260 million dollar vessel, the same guys get their budget the next year. For all of NASA's funding cuts they don't exactly stop these projects.
And I'm not even talking about the Mars landers (though I am of a mind that before we mess with Mars we should go back to the Moon and put something semipermanent there other than yard trash). I'm talking about the morons who sit around babbling about pet theories like solar sails constantly like it's the next big thing. Meanwhile we have shuttles that were only originally designed to fly for 20 years before the next big thing was to come along and because we're diverting funds to things we won't actively use for a long time (rovers on Mars are cool, as is the unfettered pursuit of knowledge, but the ratio of raw data to useable knowledge shouldn't be on the disproportionate order that it is right now. How is Mars info going to help us here?). Bottom lines are important and right now NASA doesn't have enough incentive to get results.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Kegwen had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Hay
I admit to being pwned 
(truely I didnt know that it had been disproven..)
quote:
Abbikat enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
I admit to being pwned
(truely I didnt know that it had been disproven..)
I actually was unsure at the time that you posted it, but I decided to check Snopes anyway. Lo and behold, my doubts proved correct.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Snoota wrote:
It'd be great if we made the Russians spend all that money trying to develope it during the Cold War, though. Man, that was the best thing about the Cold War, looking back through history. Making the Russians think we were building all these strange weapons so they'd pour billions of dollars into something stupid that would never work.
As autocrat of all the russias, it is my duty to tell you that Russia only ever had AT MOST 10 working long range nuclear missiles. (back in the day, Sergei Kruschev, Nikita's son, came and spoke to my school; rather enlightening)
quote:
We were all impressed when Abbikat wrote:
Unless the spaceprobe was completely, totally, and utterly airproof and a vacuum inside, there was going to be atmospheric contaimination anyway... even me with my limited science knowledge can figure that one out
Well...there's a difference between "clean room" contamination and "mud" contamination. That being said, come talk to me! I miss you.
quote:
We were all impressed when Snoota wrote:
It'd be great if we made the Russians spend all that money trying to develope it during the Cold War, though. Man, that was the best thing about the Cold War, looking back through history. Making the Russians think we were building all these strange weapons so they'd pour billions of dollars into something stupid that would never work.
How ever, the Russians were danmed good at makeing rokckets, Iffin I rember right, like many things after the cold war, they pulled out some of the russian rocket motors that had neve been fired, but were sitting around collecting dust in a siberian warehouse. NASA Grabbed these and decided to test them out, only to find these old never tests motors outclassed modern NASA motors.
Worst thing about NASA Is they been givin the space program lock stock and barrel. If the Air Force was still allowed space reaserch, I belive we whould be in a much better postion. Especially in Aerospace, the Miltary tends to push new tech through and makes sure to get shit done. Not to mention all the good that could have come out of the programs tha got canned when they took the program away from the Air Force
---For sending the rovers to Mars, Bloodsage is pretty right about this. We have sent Shit to mars before, with out nearly as high of a Failure rate. And I fail to see if they want to send these overgrown RC cars to Mars, why not load a few of them up in a viking like lander and send that.
quote:
Peter wrote:
How ever, the Russians were danmed good at makeing rokckets, Iffin I rember right, like many things after the cold war, they pulled out some of the russian rocket motors that had neve been fired, but were sitting around collecting dust in a siberian warehouse. NASA Grabbed these and decided to test them out, only to find these old never tests motors outclassed modern NASA motors.
Aye, I watched a pretty good BBC documentary on this. NASA yoinked the Russian engines after the Cold War and reverse engineered them for their own rockets/shuttles.
Some missiles had good range, others had better accuracy, while others could tote larger warheads and still others had mechanical reliability going for them, if nothing else. They could just never seem to put all those traits together in one really good missile.
quote:
Callalron had this to say about Duck Tales:
Actually the Russians were good at making parts of rockets. You ever wondered why they fielded 25 different models of land-based ICBMs and the U.S. fielded maybe 10 in the same timeframe?Some missiles had good range, others had better accuracy, while others could tote larger warheads and still others had mechanical reliability going for them, if nothing else. They could just never seem to put all those traits together in one really good missile.
Badass tractors though, supposedly
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
